economic-demographic changes in the tribal societies of tripura.pdf

Journal of NEICSSR, Vol.-20, No.2, 1996, pp. 1-18.

1

ECONOMIC-DEMOGRAPHIC CHANGES IN THE TRIBAL SOCIETIES OF TRIPURA

P.R. Bhattacharjee, P. Nayak and P. Saha*

INTRODUCTION

Interaction between socio-economic and demographic factors of change is an

important and interesting topic of study in respect of any society. Such a study assumes

overwhelming importance in the case of tribal societies known for their backwardness

and extremely slow process of socio-economic change.

Although the tribal people are known to have some distinct demographic features

and these features have important implications for their socio-economic development,

very little attempt has been made to analyse them and relate them to their problems. In

Tripura and other North Eastern States, the concern for dealing with the problem posed

by immigration of non-tribal has diverted the attention of the researchers from the

analysis of demographic changes in the tribal societies of Tripura and their relation with

economic development of these social groups. The present paper is a humble step to

bridge this gap.

METHODOLOGY

The approach in the present paper has been a mixed one in respect of

methodology. We have studied economic-demographic situation of the tribal people as a

whole and at the same time analysed the disaggregated data for different tribal groups

with a view to understanding the interaction between demographic and other socio-

economic factors through cross-section comparison. For this we have totally depended on

census data and obviously non-availability of disaggregated demographic data at the level

of specific tribes has imposed limitations on our analysis.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

* Dr. P.R. Bhattacharjee and Dr. P. Nayak, Department of Economics, Assam University, Silchar, Assam.

Ms. P. Saha, Department of Analytical & Applied Economics, Tripura University, Agartala, Tripura,

India.


2

There are as many as 19 scheduled tribes in Tripura. They are: (1) Tripuri or

Tripura, (2) Riang, (3) Jamatia, (4) Chakma, (5) Halam, (6) Noatia, (7) Mog, (8) Kuki,

(9) Garo, (10) Munda, (11) Orang, (12) Lushai, (13) Santal, (14) Uchai, (15) Khasia, (16)

Bhil, (17) Lepcha, (18) Bhutia and (19) Chaimal.

Only the 11 tribes mentioned above had population exceeding 5000 according to

1981 Census. Therefore, for comparative study of economic-demographic features we

have selected the first 11 tribes for separate analytical treatment and clubbed the rest of

the tribes together under the group-name of “Other tribes”. This has been done in view of

the fact that too small figures do not yield meaningful results when their covariation is

studied.

DYNAMICS OF TRIBAL DEMOGRAPHY

In almost all socio-economic studies of Tripura it is emphasized that owing to

continuous immigration on non-tribal population (speeded up spectacularly after the

partition of India) the proportion of tribal population to total population has fallen

drastically since 1931 reducing them to the minority position. Table 1 shows that the

proportion of tribal population to total population in Tripura was as high as 56.37 percent

in 1921 and it came down to 28.44 percent in 1981. Curiously the Census of 1991 shows

an increase in the proportion of tribal population to 30.55 percent (perhaps owing to the

influx of the Chakma refugees in recent years).

Immigration of non-tribal population has created a number of problems of

adjustment. The demographic marginalization of the tribal population in Tripura has also

been accompanied with socio-economic marginalization owing to their inability to have

adequate participation in the process of economic development (Bhattacharjee and

Ganguly, 1993). This has given rise to social tension manifest in its extreme form in the

riots of 1980 and in the chronic problem of tribal insurgency in the State.

Side by side the exogenous factor bringing about qualitative (compositional)

change in the demography of Tripura. The indigenous factor of change in the quantum

and structure of tribal population is also of great importance in view of the fact that this

has contributed to the change in land-man ration, shortening of the jhum cycle in the


3

tribal economy and consequent crisis of rising population in a stagnant occupational

setup. Moreover, changes in the proportion of different tribes within the broad social

group known as the tribal are also significant in so far as they indicate demographic

features of different tribes and their relative positions.

Table 1 show that tribal population in Tripura has been increasing at a very high

rate since 1911. During the decades of 1911-21, 1951-61, and 1981-91 the decadal

growth rates have been 54.13, 51.31 and 46.14 percent respectively. The decline in the

tribal population during 1941-51 has been ascribed by experts to errors of enumeration

(Ganguly, 1990).

The gap between the decadal growth rates of tribal population and total

population has been narrowed down since 1961 when immigration into the State started

getting slowed down. This narrowing gap between the population growth rates suggests

that the natural rates of growth of tribal and non-tribal populations in Tripura are not

greatly different. This similarity of natural demographic change between the tribal and

non-tribal combined with the known dissimilarity between their economic participation

has greatly contributed to inequality between the two social groups with all its adverse

socio-political consequences ((Bhattacharjee and Ganguly, 1993).

INTER-TRIBE COMPARATIVE DEMOGRAPHIC GROWTH RATES

Table 2 present population figures for different tribes of Tripura and their

proportions to total tribal population during 1961-81. As is well-known the Tripuris

occupy the dominant position in the tribal demography of Tripura constituting more than

50 percent of the said population. Moreover, their proportion to total tribal population has

been increasing from one census year to another, it being 52.71 percent in 1961 and 56.66

percent in 1981. At the other extreme are Noatias whose proportion to total tribal

population has suffered a steady decline from 4.45 percent in 1961 to 1.23 percent in

1981.

On the face of it, one may suggest that the Tripuri being the dominant tribal

group, are also the most advanced of all the tribes in Tripura and it is natural that they

being in the second stage of demographic change will experience higher natural rate of

growth in comparison with other less developed tribes. But decline in the Noatia

population cannot be explained in the same way. Ganguly ascribes the decrease in


4

population of the Noatias to the fact that owing to the operation of the force of

realignment in the tribal society many of the Noatias have declared themselves as the

Tripuris.

The Reang constitute the second largest tribal population in the State, their

proportion being around 15 percent. The gap between the first and the second largest

group is remarkable. Although the population of the Reang has been increasing, their

proportion to total tribal population has declined slightly from 15.72 percent in 1961 to

14.3 percent in 1981.

The third tribal group, the Jamatia however, attained a steady increase in their

proportion from 6.76 to 7.62 percent. The Chakma and Mog are the two tribes affected by

waves of international migration. But it is significant that while the population proportion

of the Chakma is fluctuating around 6 percent that of the Mog has registered steady

increase from 2.92 percent in 1961 to 3.12 percent in 1981. Perhaps this implies that

while the populations of the Chakma are still influenced by immigration the factor of

emigration does not work in the case of the Mog.

The proportions of all other tribes are below 2 percent and owing to smallness of

their number and proportion, the percentage variation in proportion does not carry much

meaning. Still the fall in the proportion of the Kuki population from 1.54 percent in 1961

to 0.94 percent in 1981 and that of the Garo from 1.52 to 1.25 percent during the same

period are remarkable.

Thus it is found that while the tribal population in Tripura has registered steady

and rather rapid increase during the last few decades, its inter-tribe composition has been

undergoing significant changes. The dominant factor in this qualitative change may be

the ‘flux in social boundaries’ in the terminology of B.K. Roy Barman (Barman, 1970).

Table 3 provides a device of looking at the same phenomenon in another way i.e.,

the way of viewing the growth rates of different tribes of Tripura in order to understand

their relative contribution to the growth in total population. The overwhelmingly

dominant tribe, Tripuri is found to have decadal growth rate exceeding 30 percent both in

1961-71 and 1971-81 while the second largest tribe, Reang registered comparatively

moderate decadal growth rates of 14.36 percent and 29.79 percent respectively during

these two decades.


5

In conformity with sharp decline in their proportion to the total tribal population,

the Noatias have registered spectacularly negative demographic growth rates during both

the decades and the Kukis have shown similar trend during 1971-81.

The Mundas and the Orangs known as the ‘tea-plantation tribes’ of Tripura

experienced high decadal growth rates of 49.48 and 52.19 percent respectively during

1971-81. The indigenous tribe, Halam also showed high decadal growth rate of 51.87

percent. The decadal growth rate of the Garos, however, are found to be surprisingly low

i.e., 1.37 percent during 1961-71.

While some of the extreme variations may be ascribed to ‘under enumeration’ in

one census year and ‘correction’ in the other or to ‘flux in social boundaries’ there is no

doubt that rates of demographic changes for the tribes of Tripura have been significantly

unequal.

SEX RATIO Female deficiency has been a striking characteristic of Indian population

throughout the period of the regular census history (Sinha and Zacharia, 1984). This

deficiency is reflected in the sex ratio which shows the number of females per one

thousand males. The death rate among females compared to that of males should be low

because of biological reasons enabling females to resist diseases more effectively than

males. Therefore, adverse sex ratio is an indicator of lower social status of women

reflecting scanty regard shown by the society to their wellbeing. On the other hand,

favourable (higher) sex ratio indicates better social status of women in the society

concerned.

Table 4 shows that the tribes in Tripura have better sex ratio than people in

general both in Tripura and in India as a whole. In 1991 the sex ratio of the tribal in

Tripura was as high as 965.2 whereas it was 946 for all Tripura and only 929 for all India.

It is also found that the sex ratio among the tribes in totality has registered an

improvement from 955 in 1961 to 965.2 in 1991. This may be owing to either an

improvement in the status of tribal women or a fuller enumeration of them in the census

or both.

If we make an inter-tribe comparison it is found that in 1961 the Jamatias had the

highest sex ratio (999.3) followed by the Kukis (985.9) and the Tripuris (958.3). The


6

Orangs had the lowest sex ratio (915.4). But the comparative position of the tribes in

respect of sex ratio has undergone change greatly over the last three decades. In 1971 the

pride of place went to the Kukis (1156) followed by the Orangs (1041.7) and the Garos

(1036). In that year the Chakmas had the lowest sex ratio of 906.9.

In 1981 the Garos (1008.8) came to the forefront in this respect followed by the

Jamatias (989.5) and the Halams (975.2). The lowest position went to the Mundas

(907.6). Thus great fluctuations are found in the sex ratios of the tribes and no firm

conclusion can be drawn about the comparative position of different tribes so far as the

sex ratio is concerned.

WORK PARTICIPATION

Rate and pattern of work participation are important indicators of economic

characteristics of a community. While rate of work participation indicate the extent of use

of the available human resource and the burden of dependants per earner, the pattern of

work participation or the occupational distribution of the workers show the stage of

economic development attained.

Although there are some variations in the definition of workers in various

censuses of India, the work participation rate are roughly comparable if we add together

the main and marginal workers and define the work participation as the ratio of total

workers (main and marginal) to total population. The variations in time reference type of

work etc may be ignored while trying to find the broad trend.

Table 5 shows that percentage of workers in the tribal societies in Tripura as a

whole has declined from 51.59 percent in 1961 to 31.55 percent in 1971 and then it has

registered an improvement to reach the figure of 41.25 percent in 1981. The overall trend

in work participation is definitely a falling one.

The falling trend in the work participation rate of the tribes in Tripura between

1961 and 1971 can mainly be explained by the exclusion of many women from the

category of workers. This is confirmed by Table 6 which shows that the tribal female

participation rate fell from 45.70 percent in 1961 to 14.78 percent in 19971. This drastic

fall cannot wholly owe to change in the definition of work. One may point out that with

the peasantisation of the tribal economy i.e., switchover from shifting cultivation to

settled peasant farming, the role of the female workers in agricultural operations has lost


7

much of its importance. Moreover, falling female participation rate may be indicative of

(1) displacement of women at a higher rate in the face of declining work opportunity for

both the sexes and (2) withdrawal of females from labour force in the first stage of socio-

economic development when the women are not educated enough to join the tertiary

sector activities.

Table 5 shows that the ‘other tribes’ has the highest rate of work participation

(62.69%) followed by the Reang (56.2%) and the Orang (55.16%). In 1971 the Reang

tribe lost their position in respect of work participation and the Orang ranked first

(42.39%) while the Munda occupied the second place (40.66%). Now, the Reang have

been identified in Tripura as a primitive tribe being hardcore Jhumia practicing shifting

cultivation in protected and reserve forest areas. They have been the chief beneficiaries of

the Primitive Group programme for settlement of Jhumia (Dept. of A&A Economics,

1988). This explains fall in their work participation rate as they made switchover from

shifting cultivation. On the other hand, the Orang and Munda are ‘tea-plantation’ tribes

and their status as tea garden workers has not undergone any substantial change.

Therefore, in their case the fall in the work participation rate has been less. It is also to be

noted that these two tribes maintained their eminence in work participation in 1981.

Table 6 shows that in 1961 the Kuki had the highest female work participation

rate (47.78%) closely followed by the Jamatia (47.6%) and the Reang (46.61%). In 1971

with fall in participation rate the first three ranks in this respect were occupied by the

Orang (37.92%), Munda (29.9%) and the ‘other tribes’ (25.75%). The Tripuri, the

dominant group suffered a great decline in the female work participation rate from 45.87

to 12.32 percent between 1961 and 1971. This may be owing to impact of development

on them. The Noatia are observed to have the lowest female participation rate of 10.34

percent in 1971.

In 1981 the Orang (40.97%) and Munda (37.97%) are seen to have maintained

their relative position followed by the Noatia (37.68%) in the third rank. The Chakma are

observed to have the lowest rate of female participation (26.54%) closely in precedence

by the Garo (26.55%).

It is difficult to explain the changes in the relative position of different tribes in respect of

female work participation as portrayed in the census figures by any set of formula. But it


8

is noteworthy that in 1961 and 1981 the differences in the rates of female participation in

work between different tribes were much less than those in 1971.

Proportion of workers in the non-primary sector is an important indicator of

economic development. Table 7 shows that this proportion for the tribal people as a

whole fell from 7.87 percent in 1961 to 3.26 percent in 1971 and then increased to 5.65

percent in 1981. The fall in this proportion between 1961 and 1981 is noteworthy. If we

are to rely in census data the conclusion is inevitable that the tribal societies in Tripura

have suffered a structural retrogression. On the one hand the household industries like

loin looms and handicrafts have suffered decay and on the other the tribal people have

not been able to make any significant progress in respect of participation in trade, service

etc. The fresh addition to the labour force consequent upon population growth has been

absorbed in the primary sector alone.

In 1961 the Munda had the highest proportion of workers (19.16%) in the non-

primary sector followed by the ‘other tribes’ (13.2%), Garo (12.01%) and the Mog

(11.24%).

In 1971 the Orang occupied the first rank (20.16%) in this respect followed by

‘other tribes’ (9.51%) and Garo (7.75%). While the higher proportion of non-primary

workers in the case of the ‘plantation-tribes’ is understandable, change in their relative

positions especially the drastic fall in the proportion of the Munda workers in the non-

primary sectors from 19.16 percent in 1961 to 2.57 percent in 1971 is difficult to explain.

In 1981 the Orang again occupied the first position (33.6%) followed by the

‘other tribes’ (16.39%) and the Garo (14.02%).

The increase of the proportion of the Orang workers in the non-primary sectors

from 6.24 percent in 1961 to 20.16 percent in 1971 and 33.6 percent in 1981 defies the

easy explanation. While tribes like the Reang, the Noatia and the Mog suffered great

decline in the proportion of workers in the non-primary sectors the Tripuri suffered less

on this account, their proportion having fallen from 8.49 percent in 1961 to 6.44 percent

in 1981.

The analysis of the figures relating to the percentage of tribal workers in the non-

primary sectors leads us to apprehend that census figures in respect of some tribes

suffered from limitations although on the average the picture of falling trend in the total


9

rate of work participation and proportion of workers in the non-primary sectors seems to

be true.

LITERACY

One of the important features of backwardness of the tribes is low literacy rate.

But it is heartening to note that the tribal people in Tripura have made significant

progress in literacy during the last few decades. As Table 8 shows, the literacy rate of the

tribal people as a whole increased from 10.01 percent in 1961 to 15.03 percent in 1971

and 23.09 percent in 1981. During the same period, the female literacy rate rose from2.31

to 6.04 and then to 12.27 percent.

Even then the difference between the tribal and non-tribal in respect of literacy

persists to be substantial. This is reflected in the fact that the total rate of literacy in

Tripura in 1981 was 42.12 percent against the tribal literacy rate of 23.09 percent. The

gap in female literacy is greater as it is observed that in 1981 when overall female literacy

rate in Tripura was 32 percent that of tribal remained as low as 12.27 percent.

If we look at the literacy scenario tribe-wise, ‘other tribes’ had the highest literacy

rate in all the census years of 1961, 1971 and 1981. The greatest contribution to this has

perhaps been made by Lushai tribe known for their great progress in education under the

influence of the Christian Missionaries.

Contrary to popular belief the Tripuri who happen to be the tribe of the erstwhile

Tripura princes does not rank first in literacy although the literacy rate has always been

higher than the average rate of the tribal in Tripura. In 1961 ‘other tribes’ ranked first

with the literacy rate of 23.94 percent followed by the Garo (13.84%) while the Tripuri

(12.68%) ranked third.

In 1971 also the three groups mentioned above occupied first, second and third

positions with literacy of 36.96, 20.31 and 17.78 percent respectively. Significantly

enough the small tribal groups clubbed as ‘other tribes’ attained a literacy rate of 36.96

percent which exceeded the literacy rate for Tripura as a whole (30.9%) in 1971.

In 1981 there were small changes in the literacy ranks of the tribal groups. While

‘other tribes’ maintained the first rank with the literacy rate of 40.1 percent the second

position was occupied by the Kuki (35.9%) with the Garo (32.76%) relegated to the third


10

position. The Tripuri (27.13%) now occupied only the 4th place in respect of literacy

among the tribal groups.

In 1981 Munda had the lowest literacy rate of 7.97 percent. The position of the

Orang (9.89%), the Mog (11.71%), the Noatia (12.27%) and the Reang (12.67%) were

also very much backward and far below the average tribal literacy rate of 23.09 percent.

The gap between the male and female literacy rates is wide in the case of many

tribes. Low literacy rates for the females have significantly contributed to the relative

backwardness of tribes in education. Even in 1981 the female literacy rate for the Orang

was as low as 2.08 percent and those of the Munda, Noatia and Reang were 2.79, 3.87

and 4.34 percent respectively.

URBANIZATION Extent of urbanization is known to be positively correlated with the degree of

economic development. As is well known all tribes of Tripura not only predominantly

rural in residential characteristics they mainly live in the inaccessible hilly hamlets many

of which are located in protected or even reserve forest areas. Therefore, the extent of

urbanization of the tribal societies is naturally extremely small. Table 9 shows that

proportion of the tribal people in Tripura living in the urban areas has increased very

slowly from 1.03 percent in 1961 to 1.31 percent in 1981.

Being the tribe of the erstwhile princely rulers of Tripura the Tripuri are naturally

the most urbanized of all the tribal groups. But even in its case the proportion of urban

population has been only 2.02 percent in 1981. Next to the Tripuri are ranked ‘other

tribes’ (1.83%), the Kuki (1.82%) and the Garo (1.51%). The proportion of urban

population is much below 1 percent in the cases of all other tribes. The Munda (0.09%)

are the least urbanized tribe closely in precedence by the Reang (0.13%), Halam (0.15%)

and Noatia (0.15%).

INTERACTION BETWEEN DEMOGRAPHIC AND SOCIO-ECONOMIC FACTORS

To examine the interaction between demographic changes and socio-economic

factors of development we have selected six indices of development viz. total literacy

rate, female literacy rate, extent of urbanization, proportion of female and proportion of

workers in the non-primary sectors.


11

It is generally expected that literacy especially female literacy would be

negatively correlated with the rate of population growth. But Table 10 shows that during

1961-71 both total literacy and female literacy has been positively correlated with the rate

of population growth although the coefficient of correlation is below 40 percent. Of

course negative correlation between these variables is found during 1971-81.

It may be said that improvement in literacy has not been substantial enough to

have definite impact on the population growth rate in the tribal societies.

The correlation between the extent of urbanization and population growth rate has

been observed to be similar to that between population growth and literacy. Here also it

may be said that extent of urbanization is too small to have a definite impact. But even

then the negative relation between urbanization and population growth has manifested

itself in 1971-81.

Contrary to rational expectation population growth has been positively correlated

with both the proportion of female workers and the proportion of workers in the non-

primary sectors in the tribal societies. This may be because of the fact that higher

percentage of female workers is not associated with industrialization or urbanization or

educational progress in the case of the tribal people of Tripura at the present stage of

development. Rather it is found that the tribes involved more deeply in a primitive

occupation like shifting cultivation have higher rates of female work participation.

Participation in non-primary activities on the part of the tribal people is confined

mainly to rural industries or tea plantations. This has not helped create an urban culture

favorable to small family norm. Rather higher income resulting from participation in the

non-primary sectors has perhaps reduced death rates among the tribes and consequently

positive correlation has been found between population growth and percentage of

workers in the non-primary sectors.


12

APPENDIX

Table 1

GROWTH OF TRIBAL POPULATION IN TRIPURA

% Decadal Variation of

Year

Tribal Population

Total Population

% of Tribal

Population Tribal Population

Total Population

1901 91,679 1,73,325 52.89 - -

1911 1,11,303 2,29,613 48.47 21.40 32.47

1921 1,71,610 3,04,437 56.37 54.13 32.59

1931 2,03,327 3,82,450 53.16 18.48 25.62

1941 2,56,991 5,13,010 50.09 26.39 34.14

1951 2,37,953 6,45,707 36.85 -7.40 25.87

1961 3,60,070 11,42,005 31.53 51.31 76.86

1971 4,50,544 15,56,342 28.95 25.12 36.28

1981 5,83,920 20,53,058 28.44 29.60 31.91

1991 8,53,345 27,57,205 30.95 46.14 34.30

Source: Various Census Reports.


13

Table 2

TRIBE-WISE POPULATION IN TRIPURA AND THEIR PERCENTAGE

Census Year Sl. No.

Names of Tribe 1961 1971 1981 1991

1 Tripuri 1,89,799 (52.71)

2,50,545 (55.61)

3,30,872 (56.66)

-

2 Reang 56,597 (15.72)

64,722 (14.36)

84,004 (14.39)

-

3 Jamatia 24,359 (6.76)

34,192 (7.59)

44,501 (7.62)

-

4 Chakma 22,386 (6.17)

28,662 (6.36)

34,797 (5.96)

-

5 Halam 16,298 (4.53)

19,076 (4.23)

28,970 (4.96)

-

6 Noatia 16,010 (4.45)

10,297 (2.28)

7,182 (1.23)

-

7 Mog 10,524 (2.92)

13,273 (2.94)

18,230 (3.12)

-

8 Kuki 5,531 (1.54)

7,775 (1.72)

5,502 (0.94)

-

9 Garo 5,484 (1.52)

5,559 (1.23)

7,298 (1.25)

-

10 Munda 4,409 (1.22)

5,347 (1.19)

7,993 (1.37)

-

11 Orang 2,875 (0.80)

3,428 (0.76)

5,217 (0.89)

-

12 Other Tribes 5,798 (1.61)

7,668 (1.70)

9,354 (1.60)

-

All Tribes 3,60,070 (100.00)

4,50,544 (100.00)

5,83,920 (100.00)

8,53,345 (100.00)

Source: Various Census Reports. Note: Figures in the parentheses denote percentages.


14

Table 3

TRIBE-WISE DECADAL POPULATION GROWTH IN TRIPURA

Census Year Sl. No.

Names of Tribe

1961-71 1971-81 1961-81 1981-91

1 Tripuri 32.00 32.06 74.33 -

2 Reang 14.36 29.79 48.42 -

3 Jamatia 40.37 30.15 82.69 -

4 Chakma 28.03 21.40 55.44 -

5 Halam 17.04 51.87 77.75 -

6 Noatia -5.68 -30.25 -55.14 -

7 Mog 26.12 37.35 73.22 -

8 Kuki 40.57 -29.23 -0.52 -

9 Garo 1.37 31.28 33.08 -

10 Munda 21.27 49.48 81.29 -

11 Orang 19.23 52.19 81.46 -

12 Other Tribes 32.25 21.99 61.33 -

All Tribes 25.12 29.60 62.17 46.14



15

Table 4

SEX RATIOS OF DIFFERENT TRIBES IN TRIPURA

Census Year Sl. No.

Names of Tribe

1961 1971 1981 1991

1 Tripuri 958.2 955.4 965.6 -

2 Reang 953.4 934.8 954.8 -

3 Jamatia 999.3 978.7 989.5 -

4 Chakma 925.5 906.9 936.9 -

5 Halam 934.9 935.7 975.2 -

6 Noatia 940.4 954.3 943.2 -

7 Mog 936.3 940.2 941.6 -

8 Kuki 985.9 1156.0 943.5 -

9 Garo 957.9 1036.0 1008.8 -

10 Munda 944.9 935.2 907.6 -

11 Orang 915.4 1041.7 953.9 -

12 Other Tribes 932.0 960.6 910.5 -

All Tripura Tribes 955.0 954.3 962.0 965.2

All Tripura 932.0 943.0 946.0 946.0

All India 941.0 930.0 935.0 929.0



16

Table 5

WORKERS AS PERCENTAGE OF POPULATION

IN DIFFERENT TRIBES IN TRIPURA

Census Year Sl. No. Names of Tribe

1961 1971 1981

1 Tripuri 49.35 29.59 40.10

2 Reang 56.20 37.29 44.68

3 Jamatia 51.72 30.76 41.34

4 Chakma 52.45 32.44 37.63

5 Halam 54.27 33.40 43.39

6 Noatia 54.37 32.11 43.72

7 Mog 52.76 32.38 42.06

8 Kuki 53.66 29.41 36.41

9 Garo 44.64 28.30 35.09

10 Munda 49.83 40.66 49.32

11 Orang 55.16 42.39 53.57

12 Other Tribes 62.69 33.72 44.91

All Tribes 51.59 31.55 41.25



17

Table 6

PERCENTAGE OF FEMALE WORKERS IN TOTAL WORKERS

IN DIFFERENT TRIBES IN TRIPURA


1961 1971 1981

1 Tripuri 45.87 12.32 32.81

2 Reang 46.61 19.86 33.76

3 Jamatia 47.60 14.47 36.61

4 Chakma 45.99 14.06 26.54

5 Halam 46.18 16.35 34.32

6 Noatia 44.56 10.34 37.68

7 Mog 43.63 12.42 30.74

8 Kuki 47.78 12.90 28.31

9 Garo 39.42 10.92 26.55

10 Munda 41.60 29.90 37.97

11 Orang 43.50 37.92 40.97

12 Other Tribes 36.34 25.75 35.78

All Tribes 45.70 14.78 33.11



18

Table 7

PERCENTAGE OF WORKERS IN NON-PRIMARY SECTOR TO

TOTAL WORKERS IN DIFFERENT TRIBES IN TRIPURA


1961 1971 1981

1 Tripuri 8.49 4.08 6.44

2 Reang 6.66 1.03 2.04

3 Jamatia 2.73 1.36 1.83

4 Chakma 7.90 1.74 4.29

5 Halam 4.73 1.41 3.75

6 Noatia 8.89 1.51 2.32

7 Mog 11.24 3.16 3.34

8 Kuki 7.07 2.88 8.44

9 Garo 12.01 7.75 14.02

10 Munda 19.16 2.57 10.86

11 Orang 6.24 20.16 33.60

12 Other Tribes 13.20 9.51 16.39

All Tribes 7.87 3.26 5.65



19

Table 8

LITERACY PERCENTAGE AMONG DIFFERENT TRIBES IN TRIPURA

Census Year Sl. No. Names of Tribe 1961 1971 1981

1 Tripuri M 21.85 F 03.12 T 12.68

27.52 07.58 07.78

38.73 15.12 27.13

2 Reang M 06.99 F 00.36 T 03.76

13.30 01.88 07.78

20.63 04.34 12.67

3 Jamatia M 19.50 F 00.80 T 10.16

25.32 04.06 14.81

34.91 10.64 22.84

4 Chakma M 14.14 F 01.03 T 07.84

21.05 03.55 12.73

28.38 08.25 18.64

5 Halam M 12.18 F 00.99 T 06.77

15.91 02.66 09.50

28.25 09.10 18.80

6 Noatia M 06.18 F 00.14 T 03.25

10.97 00.58 05.89

20.18 03.87 12.27

7 Mog M 18.56 F 01.89 T 10.50

19.06 02.95 11.25

17.93 05.10 11.71

8 Kuki M 14.61 F 03.64 T 09.17

22.85 06.93 14.31

44.01 27.29 35.90

9 Garo M 22.53 F 04.77 T 13.84

30.00 10.96 20.31

42.61 23.00 32.76

10 Munda M 04.81 F 00.23 T 02.58

07.35 00.46 04.02

12.67 02.79 07.97

11 Orang M 08.26 F 00.22 T 04.42

11.26 00.69 05.86

17.34 02.08 09.89

12 Other Tribes M 31.72 F 15.59 T 23.94

42.75 30.93 36.96

47.96 31.47 40.10

All Tribes M 17.37 F 02.31 T 10.01

23.60 06.04 15.03

33.49 12.27 23.09

All Tripura M 29.61 F 10.19 T 20.20

40.20 21.19 30.90

51.70 32.00 42.12

Source: Various Census Reports. Note: M and F refer to male and female respectively.


20

Table 9

URBAN TRIBAL POPULATION AND THEIR PERCENTAGE IN TRIPURA


1961 1971 1981

1 Tripuri 3538 (1.86)

5051 (2.02)

6694 (2.02)

2 Reang 27 (0.05)

49 (0.07)

113 (0.13)

3 Jamatia 4 (0.02)

60 (0.17)

134 (0.30)

4 Chakma 84 (0.37)

95 (0.33)

204 (0.59)

5 Halam 4 (0.02)

25 (0.13)

45 (0.15)

6 Noatia 3 (0.02)

13 (0.13)

11 (0.15)

7 Mog 14 (0.13)

21 (0.16)

49 (0.27)

8 Kuki Nil (NA)

8 (0.10)

100 (1.82)

9 Garo 9 (0.16)

37 (0.66)

110 (1.51)

10 Munda Nil (NA)

1 (0.02)

7 (0.09)

11 Orang Nil (NA)

2 (0.06)

30 (0.57)

12 Other Tribes 15 (0.26)

123 (1.60)

171 (1.83)

All Tribes 3698 (1.03)

5485 (1.22)

7668 (1.31)



21

Table 10 CORRELATION COEFFICIENTS BETWEEN

POPULATION GROWTH RATE AND OTHER SOCIO-ECONOMIC VARIABLES

Correlation Coefficients between Population Growth Rate and

Period Total

Literacy Female Literacy

Urbanization Female Workers

Workers in Non-Primary

Sector

1961-71 0.3421 0.2627 0.2276 0.1690 0.0393

1971-81 -0.3281 -0.3381 -0.2655 0.2381 0.3029

1961-81 -0.1287 -0.1517 -0.0848 0.1620 0.2330

REFERENCES

1. Bhattacharjee, P.R. and Ganguly, J.B. (1993): “Relative Economic Status of

Social Groups in Tripura: A Study in Inequality”, Journal of NEICSSR, Vol. 17,

No. 2, pp. 13-23.

2. Department of Analytical and Applied Economics (1988): Evaluation of Jhumia

Rehabilitation Schemes in Tripura, Tripura University, Agartala.

3. Ganguly, J.B. (1990): “Pattern and Occupational Structure of Tribal Population in

Tripura”, in Ashish Bose et al (eds.) Tribal Demography and Development in

North-east India, B.R. Publishing Corporation, Delhi.

4. Roy Barman, B.K. (1970): Demographic and Socio-Economic Profiles of the Hill

Areas of North-East India, Census of India 1961.

-----------0----------

economic-demographic changes in the tribal societies of tripura.pdf

Documents